Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee highos at
Tue Mar 19 15:49:24 PST 2002


On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 12:38:01AM +0100, Neven Has wrote:
> I believe Felipe Contreras was the first one to suggest something like this.

He's problably been the last recently.. however he wasn't the first :)

Bryan Dumm was problably the first, and i do believe he was using
something similar to that last time i talked to him with Amin.

> But it's good that you brought it up. I wasn't too exited about it before,
> but now I think that it could actually be useful to have it?

I've been slowly thinking the same thing actually.  Seth keep's
mentioning it too me over and over again, and i'm finding it *really*
hard to ignore *cough* :)

> Especially considering that we can't decide on a good names for those
> <*build> elements. ;) Adding a generic tag like this wouldn't break
> the syntax latter on, however we name them.


> It could also be a good compromise between those thinking that <*build>
> elements are totally useless, and those thinking they are a Good Thing?

So those that don't like them, wont need to use them?  So like;






That would really make it alot easier to customize and make the profiles
look quite alot more different.. weither that's a good or bad thing thou

> And we could even use it for more that just <package> stages, to group
> some elements logically (something Felipe was also suggesting).

Hhrm.  Yes.  I know reasons why someone would want todo this, thou it
still rubs me the wrong way.  I guess i've always looked at the profiles
on a per-package basis.  Hell i wish it was just all packages with more
configureation elements done inside the package tags, but oh well.

Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee  ( highos at linuxfromscratch dot org )
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list